United States v. Dryden
3:13-cr-00017
W.D.N.C.Jun 24, 2016Background
- Culbertson pleaded guilty to bank robbery (18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d), and 2) and being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); a § 924(c) brandishing count was dismissed under the plea agreement.
- The PSR applied a five‑level enhancement under USSG § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) for brandishing/possession of a firearm during the robbery and designated Culbertson a career offender based on two Georgia convictions for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, producing a Guidelines range of 188–235 months.
- At sentencing the court overruled a mitigating‑role objection, adopted the PSR findings, and sentenced Culbertson to 200 months on Count 1 (with a concurrent 120 months on Count 3).
- On direct appeal the Fourth Circuit affirmed; appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and the court declined to resolve ineffective‑assistance claims conclusively on the record.
- Culbertson filed a § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel (including failure to challenge the five‑level brandishing enhancement) and contesting the validity of the prior drug convictions used for career‑offender status.
- The district court denied relief, holding (1) Apprendi/Alleyne principles did not render the Guidelines enhancement unconstitutional where the § 924(c) charge was dismissed and the enhancement did not change the statutory maximum for the robbery, (2) the career‑offender predicates were valid and Culbertson admitted them, and (3) appellate counsel acted reasonably in selecting issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether brandishing enhancement violated Sixth Amendment (Apprendi/Alleyne) | Culbertson: facts supporting five‑level enhancement were not admitted or found by a jury, so sentence is illegal | Government: § 924(c) charge dismissed; enhancement under Guidelines did not increase statutory maximum for robbery and is a sentencing fact | Denied — enhancement lawful here; Apprendi/Alleyne inapplicable to this Guidelines finding under these facts |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not challenging brandishing enhancement at trial | Culbertson: trial counsel should have disputed enhancement; would have affected plea/sentence | Government: record supports enhancement; counsel’s performance not deficient and appellate counsel raised the issue via ineffective‑assistance claim | Denied — no Strickland prejudice shown; appellate counsel’s choices reasonable |
| Whether counsel failed to investigate/contest prior drug convictions for career‑offender status | Culbertson: counsel should have investigated validity of Georgia convictions | Government: Culbertson admitted convictions at sentencing; PSR reliable and convictions qualify as controlled substance offenses under § 4B1.1 | Denied — convictions valid and qualifying; no prejudice shown |
| Whether collateral review can relitigate brandishing after direct appeal | Culbertson: renews challenge to enhancement | Government: Fourth Circuit already rejected the claim; law‑of‑the‑case and mandate doctrines bar relitigation | Denied — barred by appellate decision and law‑of‑the‑case doctrine |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (holding any fact that increases the penalty beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (holding facts that increase mandatory minimums are elements for jury determination)
- Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (prior decision addressing judge‑found facts for sentencing enhancements)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance in plea context)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (procedures for appellate counsel who finds no meritorious issues)
- Boeckenhaupt v. United States, 537 F.2d 1182 (4th Cir.) (law of the case/limitations on collateral relitigation)
- Bell v. Jarvis, 236 F.3d 149 (4th Cir.) (standard for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel)
- Pruett v. Thompson, 996 F.2d 1560 (4th Cir.) (appellate counsel presumptively allowed to choose issues)
- Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (appellate counsel not required to raise every nonfrivolous claim)
- United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64 (4th Cir.) (law of the case doctrine in criminal appeals)
- Miller‑El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (standards for certificate of appealability)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 474 (requirements for certificate of appealability when denial rests on procedural grounds)